julie saying all 24-26 questions in given lr section generally arranged in progressive order difficulty, question type (or "subtype," if prefer) aside. some types lr questions--e.g., strengthen--rare enough might have only one anyway, so "ordering" of all questions that type within section obviously moot issue.

some lr question types--e.g., inference--common enough expect have several in one section. these also would generally be in order difficulty as consequence of, if nothing else, general progessivity for entire section.

main point here: fewer people likely going answer question 19 right than question 4, or question 15 and question 2.

You are generally correct. But if you look to the statistics for LR sections (I got these from a private company, I don't know whether or not they're publicly available), you'll see that there is generally a very difficult question somewhere around the 7-10 range, and then often another around 14-19, and the last 4-5 will be the most difficult of the section. This is not speculation, but hard statistics.

and how many times julie say lr questions "generally" in order of progressive difficulty? christ, learn how read. julie 10 steps ahead of you, babe.

but at least you know how avoid speculating when "hard statistics" available, and actually have those statistics. (hey, lindbergh and hys hopeful, you friggin' idiots, you getting this?)

julie probably looking at same data to which you refer, and julie know where your "private company" got them. so should anyone else who hold forth on lsat "difficulty patterns."

You've got to realize that its hard to read critically when every other word is missing.

julie saying all 24-26 questions in given lr section generally arranged in progressive order difficulty, question type (or "subtype," if prefer) aside. some types lr questions--e.g., strengthen--rare enough might have only one anyway, so "ordering" of all questions that type within section obviously moot issue.

some lr question types--e.g., inference--common enough expect have several in one section. these also would generally be in order difficulty as consequence of, if nothing else, general progessivity for entire section.

main point here: fewer people likely going answer question 19 right than question 4, or question 15 and question 2.

You are generally correct. But if you look to the statistics for LR sections (I got these from a private company, I don't know whether or not they're publicly available), you'll see that there is generally a very difficult question somewhere around the 7-10 range, and then often another around 14-19, and the last 4-5 will be the most difficult of the section. This is not speculation, but hard statistics.

That face makes statistics much harder. I kinda want to poke you in the eye with my pencil.

julie saying all 24-26 questions in given lr section generally arranged in progressive order difficulty, question type (or "subtype," if prefer) aside. some types lr questions--e.g., strengthen--rare enough might have only one anyway, so "ordering" of all questions that type within section obviously moot issue.

some lr question types--e.g., inference--common enough expect have several in one section. these also would generally be in order difficulty as consequence of, if nothing else, general progessivity for entire section.

main point here: fewer people likely going answer question 19 right than question 4, or question 15 and question 2.

You are generally correct. But if you look to the statistics for LR sections (I got these from a private company, I don't know whether or not they're publicly available), you'll see that there is generally a very difficult question somewhere around the 7-10 range, and then often another around 14-19, and the last 4-5 will be the most difficult of the section. This is not speculation, but hard statistics.

My points in the other thread about this were 1) I cannot find a dictionary definition of "few" that restricts it to a minority, and 2) I cannot find an LSAT question you will miss by assuming that "few" could be a majority.

I would agree with both of these points. My definition was less about what you should think on the LSAT and more a technical definition. If I were to write a definition entry for "few" I would exclude it being a majority because I cannot think of one case where it (without an "a" in front) could be validly used to describe a majority. Can you? I think you're right that there is not an LSAT question that you would miss if you assumed that it could be a majority. But I also doubt that there is any that you would miss by assuming that it could not be a majority. For LSAT purposes, "few" can be treated just like "some."

There's a difference between "few" and "a few." "Few" could never equal a majority. If there were 5 X's and 3 of them were Y's, you could not fairly say that "Few X's are Y's." But "a few" could constitute a majority-if 3 of 5 X's are Y's, then you could fairly say that "A few X's are Y's."

1. First off, do games in order of difficulty. (Know you didn't want to hear it, just repeating it anyway.) This will ensure that you at least rack up the most possible points before getting to the hardest game. It will also allow you to relax and focus more when working on the last/hardest game, b/c you'll know you already have more points on under your belt. Getting stuck on the hardest game early on, or midway through, can really mess with your head, and may prevent you from getting to easier questions.

2. Do questions in order of difficulty. This will allow you to warm up with each game and get a feel for it before tackling the harder questions in each game. It will also allow you to gain momentum and confidence, which will help you think more clearly, and move more quickly. You may decide to guess on the hardest question on some games to save time. Hardest questions are often among the first few, easiest questions are often among the last few.

The first question, while generally not particularly hard, is often somewhat time consuming. To solve such questions, it's usually best to apply the rules, one at a time, to all answer choices. (Some rules will knock out more than one answer choice.)

3. Always review the answer choices first, looking for a clearly correct answer. (You specifically asked about this.) Some answers will be clearly correct in light of your diagram. This will save you time that would've been wasted analyzing more ambiguous choices. If there is no clearly correct answer, you've only invested a few seconds reviewing the answer choices. Analyzing ambiguous choices unnecessarily will waste far more time. So always review the choices first, and don't stress about it.

I only agree with Lindbergh's third piece of advice.

I just don't see that there is an effective way to decide what the order of difficulty of your games is without taking the time to actually read and think critically about each game, which would take up far too much time. Just doing a quick peek at each of the games is not going to tell you what the order of difficulty is. A pure sequencing game could be the most difficult on the test if the rules don't establish much. There is the same problem with the questions. It takes time (too much of it) to analyze the difficulty of the questions, which you would have to do if you were going to do them in ascending order of difficulty. This time spent analyzing difficulty would be much better spent analyzing questions and answer choices. Every question is doable.

The best rule for dealing with difficult questions is to skip when you're stuck. If you skip a question in a game, do your best to answer it, if possible (again, don't spend too long), before moving on to the next game. Once you leave a game and move on to the next, you've lost your conception of the game you left, and will have to regain it when you come back to answer the question you've skipped.

I believe in many cases "difficulty" on the LSAT is rather subjective. It really depends on where your strengths/weaknesses lay.

For example, I can do even the most "difficult" pure sequencing or linear/grouping game faster and far more effortlessly than a medium difficulty circular game.

A tweak on Lindbergh's advice would be to recognize your strengths and weaknesses with particular game types (you'll manage to recognize these through the numerous practice tests you should finish prior to taking the real thing). Only when you're familiar with the game types on the LSAT (and your personal strengths/weaknesses with these particular game types) will you be able to simply glance at a game and know whether it will be easier or more difficult for you personally.

In fact, I think you are correct. I do think it is true that I could quickly spot what games would be the most difficult for me, personally. And perhaps I am underestimating how well students will understand their own strengths and weaknesses. What I would be more opposed to is giving advice like "do the pure sequencing games first, because they are the easiest." If you fully understand where your own strengths lie, then you could potentially pick out the order of games. Although I still think we're talking about at least a minute to a minute and half to make that decision, which, if you're the kind of person who is always going to finish all four games, would probably be better spent by analyzing questions.

Furthermore, I repeat that trying to analyze questions in terms of difficulty would probably be a waste of time. Even if you knew that you were particularly weak on a certain type of question, it would make more sense to work in order and just skip that question type when you came to it rather than taking the time to figure out what the ascending order of difficulty was for the questions.

Many people do not have self-understanding, and many people do not even try to gain it. But withoutself understanding it is impossible to understandothers. It is clear from this that those that lack self-understanding will neverbe able to understand others.

1. First off, do games in order of difficulty. (Know you didn't want to hear it, just repeating it anyway.) This will ensure that you at least rack up the most possible points before getting to the hardest game. It will also allow you to relax and focus more when working on the last/hardest game, b/c you'll know you already have more points on under your belt. Getting stuck on the hardest game early on, or midway through, can really mess with your head, and may prevent you from getting to easier questions.

2. Do questions in order of difficulty. This will allow you to warm up with each game and get a feel for it before tackling the harder questions in each game. It will also allow you to gain momentum and confidence, which will help you think more clearly, and move more quickly. You may decide to guess on the hardest question on some games to save time. Hardest questions are often among the first few, easiest questions are often among the last few.

The first question, while generally not particularly hard, is often somewhat time consuming. To solve such questions, it's usually best to apply the rules, one at a time, to all answer choices. (Some rules will knock out more than one answer choice.)

3. Always review the answer choices first, looking for a clearly correct answer. (You specifically asked about this.) Some answers will be clearly correct in light of your diagram. This will save you time that would've been wasted analyzing more ambiguous choices. If there is no clearly correct answer, you've only invested a few seconds reviewing the answer choices. Analyzing ambiguous choices unnecessarily will waste far more time. So always review the choices first, and don't stress about it.

I only agree with Lindbergh's third piece of advice.

I just don't see that there is an effective way to decide what the order of difficulty of your games is without taking the time to actually read and think critically about each game, which would take up far too much time. Just doing a quick peek at each of the games is not going to tell you what the order of difficulty is. A pure sequencing game could be the most difficult on the test if the rules don't establish much. There is the same problem with the questions. It takes time (too much of it) to analyze the difficulty of the questions, which you would have to do if you were going to do them in ascending order of difficulty. This time spent analyzing difficulty would be much better spent analyzing questions and answer choices. Every question is doable.

The best rule for dealing with difficult questions is to skip when you're stuck. If you skip a question in a game, do your best to answer it, if possible (again, don't spend too long), before moving on to the next game. Once you leave a game and move on to the next, you've lost your conception of the game you left, and will have to regain it when you come back to answer the question you've skipped.